Misconduct vs incapacity: Navigating workplace alcoholism
The critical question employers must face is this: is addiction misconduct or incapacity?
While using prohibited substances on the job is clearly a disciplinary matter, dependence — especially alcoholism — must be viewed through a medical lens. It is a disease, and in the context of employment, it legally requires special consideration as a form of incapacity. The refusal to acknowledge this fundamental medical reality is where many businesses falter, often setting themselves up for costly legal challenges.
The South African court's stance
This vital distinction was recently underscored by the South African Labour Court in the illuminating case of PSA obo Randolph van Wyk v Department Of Social Development: Western Cape Provincial Government and Others.
The case involved an employee dismissed for “unauthorised absenteeism”. The employer treated the repeated absences as a disciplinary matter — simple misconduct. Yet, the facts pointed to a deeper issue: the employee was struggling with documented alcohol dependency and related health problems, a fact evidenced by counselling attendance and medical reports.
The employee successfully challenged the dismissal, arguing that an incapacity enquiry, not a misconduct one, should have been conducted.
Though an initial arbitrator agreed that incapacity procedure was warranted, they still upheld the dismissal as fair — a baffling conclusion that the Labour Court swiftly overturned. This judicial correction serves as a sharp reminder that employers cannot simply pay lip service to the correct procedure.
The problem with punishment
The distinction is important. South African labour law, guided by the Code of Good Practice: Dismissal, provides a detailed roadmap for managing workplace issues. For misconduct, the focus is on establishing fault and meting out punishment. For incapacity — especially medical conditions like substance dependence — the focus shifts to accommodation and assistance.
The Code is clear: the employer has an onerous duty to accommodate and must exhaust all alternatives before resorting to termination. This includes offering avenues for counselling and rehabilitation. To ignore this obligation is not only a failure of corporate social responsibility but a breach of legally mandated due process.
Incapacity and its role in dismissals for misconduct
As the court affirmed in the Van Wyk judgment, alcoholism is scientifically and medically accepted as a treatable disease. Its impact on an employee’s behaviour is therefore considered to be through no fault of their own. A dismissal for absenteeism requires a finding of fault.
If the root cause is a disease that results in incapacity, that fault cannot be established. This medical understanding is the cornerstone of the modern approach.
A Call for business prudence
By reinstating the employee, the Van Wyk judgment sends a clear message to all employers: you must know the difference.
When an employee’s struggles stem from a medical condition like alcohol dependency, the appropriate response is not a disciplinary hearing; it's an incapacity enquiry.
Underperformance is valid grounds for dismissal, but fairness is imperative
Furthermore, this is not just a legal technicality; it’s sound business practice. Investing in an employee's recovery through rehabilitation often means retaining a skilled, experienced worker who will ultimately return as a dedicated asset. Shaping the enquiry around understanding over punishment is key to ensuring a fair outcome and preserving valuable human capital.
The obligation is to assist the employee with medical support, rehabilitation, or professional help, thereby recognising their condition and ensuring a substantively and procedurally fair resolution.
Until employers fully embrace the medical reality of addiction, they will continue to lose fair dismissal cases, but more importantly, they will continue to lose employees who need a helping hand, not a ‘pink slip’.
The law requires a path of support.
